Gather.com: Going back to book marketing the way it was is way wrong.
Harlequin readers rush to the bookstore each month to buy the entire line of Harlequin books, and read—no, ravage—the novels at a truly ravenous pace. Harlequin runs a new frontlist monthly. These readers are fans of Harlequin, not the authors; that is, they won’t follow the authors to another publisher, per se. Likewise, the Harlequin authors don’t have to waste time trying to build a reader base. As long as their books have Harlequin on the cover, they know they can earn a living at writing.
Now admittedly I trust taking chances with certain publishers more than others. I also know I follow authors I discover there and will buy their books exclusively from another publisher. Anyone out there think this is the way Romance readers are about Harlequin? Maybe I am just too picky.
Tags: eBook Commentary
vein wrote,
There is a strong element of truth to it. Mills and Boon (HQ in the UK) basically invented brand loyal in romance readers and having discovered this trait–built it into an empire with strong branding of “lines” including the use of distinctive spint color and cover sashes. And category romance readers are publisher loyal, often to a greater extent than they are author loyal. Even with romance ebook, publisher is a better predictor of earnings than author. File it under “weird but true”. Have you been in Borders on a weekday afternoon? on tjhe romance aisles you will find women with stacks of 10 or more Harlequin books and nothing else.
Link | November 23rd, 2009 at 9:03 pm
Elizabeth wrote,
I think it sounds half true. Certainly there’s brand loyalty to the publisher and the line, but I think it’s daft to say the readers aren’t author loyal too. I’d certainly follow an author I liked to another publisher, and conversely, if there’s an author I don’t like I won’t buy another of their books even if it is in a line I enjoy most of the other books in. That’s going to override the branding and publisher loyalty for me any time.
It is a good point about the author not needing to build a fan base, in the same way someone at a different type of publisher has to even before they publish their first book! Being published in that line means readers are more likely to buy it even though they’ve never heard of the writer, in a way they might not take a chance on a new writer as a single title book. So that’s an advantage, certainly. It would be interesting to see different sales figures for category romance authors who do actively cultivate and build their fan base and those who don’t. Not that there’s anything wrong with the latter, they might prefer to concentrate all their time on just writing the best books they can and build fan loyalty that way.
It’s rather interesting that the article describes building a fan base as “wasting” time though, isn’t it? Is that the way some authors feel about that. As if it’s a big chore to cultivate their fan base?
Link | November 24th, 2009 at 1:57 am
Emilie wrote,
I’ve read plenty of category romances in my day. I followed certain lines of books from four publishing companies (or imprints): Harlequin, Silhouette, Loveswept and Candlelight. Yes, this was during the eighties. I made an effort to collect the books of authors I particularly liked. I have some of them still, so I know I was getting books by Jayne Castle/Jayne Ann Krentz, Joan Hohl/Amii Lorin, Iris Johansen, Sandra Brown, and Janet Evanovich, to name a few. I followed those authors to different publishers and lines.
I really didn’t get into it when Iris Johansen and Sandra Brown started writing thrillers and suspense, but I’ve certainly continued to follow Janet Evanovich and Jayne Castle/Jayne Ann Krentz/Amanda Quick/Stephanie James.
I would look for books in certain lines — Harlequin American, Silhouette Desire and Special Editions — I think I generally went for the ones that were more “spicy” at the time, relatively so. But I obviously thought that certain authors’ books were keepers.
Link | November 25th, 2009 at 12:19 pm